Adeh (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Peter Kagunza Adaji) v Maiyo & another (Environment and Land Case 35 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 3846 (KLR)

20/12/2017, and a decree thereof issued, which the defendants have neglected, refused, or failed to comply with. 3. The applicant deposes that the respondents unlawfully occupy, trespass upon, and interfere with the decreed land, making them suffer loss and damage. 4. When the matter came up on 23/4/2026, there was no appearance by the respondents despite evidence of service of court processes. Learned counsel Mr. Teti submitted that the appeal, which had been preferred against the judgment, was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel, however, admitted that the decree of this court had not included an eviction order. ORIGINAL COPY Similarly, learned counsel submitted that no eviction notice has ever been served upon the judgment debtor to date. 6. The decree issued and signed on 17/1/2018 by the Deputy Registrar nullified the placing of a caution and ordered the 1st respondent to transfer Title No. Kaisagat/Chepkoilel/Block 5/Amuka/13 to the applicant’s name, and in default, the Deputy Registrar of the court will do so. 7. It is not clear from the application herein if the decree holder has transferred the title to the suit land, and if so, when this happened. Execution of a RULING: KITALE ELC NO. 35 OF 2016 - D.O.D. – 24/6/2026 2

page 2 of 5

decree on immovable property and a decree that is over one year are governed by Order 22, Rules 18 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules as read together with Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act. 8. There is no evidence that the applicant has invoked the said procedure through the Deputy Registry before moving to this court. The eviction process is also governed by the procedure set out in Section 152A-I of the Land Act. There is no evidence of issuance of a 3-month notice upon the judgment debtor, his agents, servants, or employees. 9. In Mitu Bell Welfare Society -vs- Attorney General & Others Petition No. 164 of 2011, the court decreed that evictions must be humane and ORIGINAL COPY must safeguard the right of persons liable to an eviction. 10. In Nyandat & 3 others -vs- Osura & 5 others (Civil Appeal 80 of 2019) [2026] KECA 767 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Judgment), the court held that all questions related to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be determined by the court executing the decree and that any objection relating to limitation, procedural irregularity, or legality of execution must be raised within the execution proceedings. RULING: KITALE ELC NO. 35 OF 2016 - D.O.D. – 24/6/2026 3

page 3 of 5

11. From the foregoing, the applicant is yet to follow the law. This court, under Article 259 of the Constitution, has to interpret the Constitution and the statutes purposively, for purposes of harmony. 12. Section 152A-I of the Land Act was a result of the Mitubell case (supra), to ensure that eviction processes in Kenya align with best practices across the world, which require a human eviction process. The Section, in my view, remains the substantive law to give eviction, whether court-sanctioned or not. 13. Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in my view, should not be read in isolation from Section 152A-I of the ORIGINAL COPY Land Act. 14. The upshot is that I find the applicant does not require a court order to undertake to enforce the decree of the court outside the parameters set by Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 15. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs. 16. File marked closed. 17. Orders accordingly. Ruling dated, signed, and delivered via Microsoft Teams/Open Court at Kitale on this 24th day of June 2026. RULING: KITALE ELC NO. 35 OF 2016 - D.O.D. – 24/6/2026 4

page 4 of 5

In the presence of: Court Assistant - Dennis No appearance for the parties HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. ORIGINAL COPY RULING: KITALE ELC NO. 35 OF 2016 - D.O.D. – 24/6/2026 5

page 5 of 5